get_index_storage_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description indicates a read-only operation returning a dictionary with storage path and statistics, which matches the tool's name. However, without annotations, it does not disclose potential risks (e.g., authentication requirements) or side effects beyond the implied non-destructive nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and return value. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no extraneous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the output (storage path and statistics) and indicates the tool is informational. The output schema likely covers return structure, so completeness is high.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the input schema. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description satisfies that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it 'Get information about the centralized index storage location' and specifies the return format, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like index_repo or list_indexed_repositories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to check storage vs. listing repositories). The context of sibling tools implies its use for storage info, but no direct usage context or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.